FT MEADE 
GenCol1 



NATIONALISM. 


A. TMTACTATENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 


BY FRANCIS LIEBER, 

PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC LAW IN THE LAW SCHOOL OF COLUMBIA 


COLLEGE AT NEW YORK. 


Tlia National Polity is the normal type of Modern Government; 
Civil Liberty resting on Institutional Self Government is the 
high political calling of this period; Absolutism , whether Mon¬ 
archical or Democratic , intelligent and brilliant or coarse , its 
pervading danger; and increasing International Neighbourli¬ 
ness with growing Agreement of National Forms and Con¬ 
cepts, its fairest Gage of the Spreading Progress of our Kind . 


Normal Types of Government. Nationalization. 


As tlie city-state was the normal type of free communities in antiquity, and 
as the feudal system must be considered as one of the normal types of govern¬ 
ment in the forbidding middle ages, so is the national polity the normal type 
of our own epoch—not indeed centralism. 

The highest national polity yet developed is the representative national 
government, equally distant from the market-republic of old and the despot¬ 
ism of Asia and Europe, or absorbing centralism. Centralism may be intense¬ 
ly national, even bigottedly so; it may be intelligent, and formulated with 
precision ; but centralism remains an inferior species of government, and de¬ 
centralization becomes necessary as self-government or liberty are longed for 
and present themselves clearer to the mind of a people waxing in manli¬ 
ness and independence. Centralism may be national, but National Polity 
and Centralism are not equivalent terms. England, which has enjoyed a 
national polity long before other European countries, is to this day the least 
centralized state of Europe, and possesses a far higher degree of self-govern¬ 
ment than any people of the neighbouring continent. Germany, although 
the Germans were called the German Nation in the early times of the em¬ 
perors, never acquired a national polity, like the English, which dates from 
the days of Alfred, and is openly and liberally marked out by Magna Charta. 
There was an England with unbarred national intercommunication long before 
there was a national France, Spain, or Italy, or a political, national Germany. 

Large nations were gradually formed out of the fragmentary peoples on 
the continent of Europe, long after the disintegration of the Roman empire, 
by different processes of nationalization, which form one of the most instruc¬ 
tive subjects in the whole history of civilization ; England alone dating the 
blessing of a national polity from over a thousand years back. Other nations 
are even now in the act of forming; others,.already existing, are carrying out 
more distinctly or establishing more firmly the national elements of their 


» 


• » 







2 


polities. For this reason, and because the existence of many nations deeply 
influences our civilization, the present period will be called the National Pe¬ 
riod. It began plainly when so many other great things began, when great 
events happened and great ideas burst upon mankind, and when inventions 
and discoveries were made, which ushered in the modern era—in the middle 
of the fifteenth century; that age when the conquering Mussulman tore the 
fairest portion from Europe, and thereby forced the restoration of letters and 
revival of inquiry upon her; when Europe lost Greece in the East, and sent 
Columbus to the west to discover our continent. The process of nationaliz¬ 
ing the many dialects and jargons had begun in some countries—geographic¬ 
ally marked as countries, but wholly un-nationalized otherwise—at an earlier 
time. Dante, singing in the Tuscan dialect, raised it thus to the dignity of 
the language for all Italy, as Luther by his own translation of the Bible, 
made his dialect the German language ; and Dante, the greatest poet of his 
country, which he calls Italia mia di dolor ostello (the very inn of grief,) be¬ 
cause torn to pieces and lacking her destined nationality, became thus the 
first nationalizer of Italy in the thirteenth and at the beginning of the four¬ 
teenth century—four hundred and fifty years before Cavour; and now only 
has Germany made a vigorous movement toward her political nationaliza¬ 
tion, in which may Heaven bless her leaders’ boldest acts. 


What is a Nation in the Modern Sense of the Word f 

The word Nation, in the fullest adaptation of the term, means, in modern 
times, a numerous and homogeneous population, (having long emerged from 
the hunter’s and nomadic state,) permanently inhabiting and cultivating a 
coherent territory, with a well defined geographic outline, and a name of its 
own—the inhabitants speaking their own language having their own litera¬ 
ture and common institutions, which distinguish them clearly from other 
and similar groups of people ; being citizens or subjects ot a unitary govern¬ 
ment, however subdivided it may be, and feeling an organic unity with one 
another, as well as being conscious of a common destiny. Organic intellec¬ 
tual, and political, internal unity, with proportionate strength, and a distinct 
and obvious demarcation from similar groups, are notable elements of the 
idea of a modern nation in its fullest sense. A nation is a nation only when 
there is but one nationality ; and the attempt at establishing a nationality 
within a nationality is more inconsistent and mischievous even than the es¬ 
tablishment of “ an empire within an empire.” 

No groupings of human beings, short of nations, are adequate to the high 
demands of modern civilization. Without a national character, states can¬ 
not obtain that longevity and continuity of political society which is 
necessary for our progress. Even our patriotism has become pre-eminently 
national. Modern patriotism is not satisfied with the narrow bounds of a 
city, as of old, or the limits of a province, though it be the fairest. Nothing 
but a Country, that is the dwelling-place of a nation, suffices for the patria 
of modern men. But w r ere not the noblest sentiments, and deeds, and vic¬ 
tories, even of Greece, of a Pan-Hellenic character? 

In the organic unity lies the difference between the terms Nation and People. 



3 


People generally means the aggregate of the inhabitants of a territory, with¬ 
out any additional idea, at least favourable idea. In all European languages, 
except the English, the words corresponding to People had acquired the 
meaning of rabble, populace, the lowest and least respectable class. The 
French Dictionary of the Academy gave hardly another definition of the 
word Peuple ; and in England alone, to her great honour, did it retain, or 
at any rate acquire at a very early period, an honourable meaning. 
While the French Academy thus ignominiously defined the word People, 
Chatham, when George III. had reluctantly appointed him premier, used 
to be called the People’s Minister for ‘‘His Majesty’s Secretary of State,” 
and on the other hand, it was natural that Louis XV. was startled when first 
the word Nation came to be heard in the last century, in France. He is 
reported to have said : “ Nation ! What is Nation ? Is there anything be¬ 
sides myself?” The remark seems to be too profound tor a being such as he 
had sunk to be ; but there can be no doubt that this supposed question indi¬ 
cated the sentiment of that portion of the French court which was led by the 
Jesuits, then as under the Spanish predominance, and as now, hostile to 
national organic unity and to nationalism in its varied manifestations. 

Extensive and organized power over large populations does not suffice to 
make a nation. The Roman monarchy was no national empire; nor had the 
vast dominion of Charles the Fifth a national character. Prussia, ever since 
the Peace of Paris, in 1815, called one of the Five Great Powers, never formed a 
nation. She herself acknowledged, and still acknowledges, that the nation 
to which she belongs is the German nation, though not yet politically nation¬ 
alized, as Martin Luther had called it in 1520, in his grand and inspiriting 
letter ‘‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nat on on the Bettering of 
the Ghostly Class ” (Clergy). Nor does common extraction and demarcating 
institutions, not even a peculiar religion, necessarily constitute a. nation in the 
modern sense. The modern Jews dispersed over the globe have never con¬ 
solidated into a nation. Nor does a common language alone constitute a 
nation. If Panslavism-were ever so successful, there would be.no Panslavic 
nation ; nor can we properly speak, at present, of a Russian nation, however 
distinct the Russian empire may be. The Russian system has rather the ten¬ 
dency to trample out nationalities and national characteristics for the benefit 
of a gigantic bureaucracy, called Russia. 

However striking a characteristic of a nation may be found in a separate 
language, and however important a separate name for a country or a nation 
may be, neither is absolutely necessary. We are an illustration. We have 
not our separate language; and more than two distinctly separate nations 
may speak the English tongue, before the Cis Caucasian race passes into the 
twentieth century. Long before the American Independence was actually 
declared the consciousness of our forming a national entirety was ripening. 
The Continental Congress used the words Country and America in its 
official acts—in resolutions and appointments—before that day of mark, the 
Fourth of July. The very name Continental Congress, continental army and 
money shows that the idea of a national unity was present to the minds of 
all—at home as well as abroad. Unfortunately no name had formed itself 
for our portion of the globe. No one can say in what bed our history would 


4 


have coursed, liad there been a distinct name for our country, and had Phila¬ 
delphia become the national capital. As it was, general names came to be nsed. 
Chatham and his contemporaries always used the name America ; Wash¬ 
ington was appointed to the command in order to defend and protect “Amer¬ 
ican liberty,” before the Declaration of Independence ; but whether there 
was a distinct name or not, all felt that we were a nation. John Adams 
ascribes to the speech of Otis against the Writs of Assistance, therefore 
before the outbreak of the Revolution, the power of having “ breathed into 
this nation the breath of life,” and when Doctor Franklin, with Deane and 
Lee, were received as Ministers of the United States of America by the king 
of France on March 19th. 1778, after the conclusion of the treaty between 
the two governments, the king spoke to Franklin of “ the two nations.” 

The pre revolutionary speeches, specimens of which are given in a modest 
but very instructive school book, (*‘ Patriotic Eloquence,” by the late Mrs. 
Kirkland,) show that the leading men of America had at that early period 
no other idea than that of a country, of our land ; and that of a nation, of our 
people. The puny provincialism which unfolded itself under the insufficient 
Articles of Confederation, came into vogue after the heroic period of the 
Revolution, and it led the country to the very brink of ruin and extinction. 
So at least Washington and other men of the period thought and wrote and 
spoke, and they knew their country well. 

The nationality of our people and their government used to be strenuously 
denied by the adherents of what was called the State-Rights doctrine; 
probably it is still; not however because we have not our own language, nor, 
unfortunately, a distinct name for our country (not quite unlike the deficiency 
of the English language itself in not possessing a word for Patrie or Vater- 
land), but because they preferred provincialism to nationalism, and clung to 
the effete form of government of a confederacy of petty sovereignties. They 
denied even that Congress was a government. 

In antiquity and the early middle ages there existed no nations in the 
modern sense, this side of China, with the only exception of the Israelites. 
There were Assyrian and Median and Persian empires, but not nations. The 
empires were called after the conquering and ruling tribe or race. Hence 
their sudden conquests and speedy annihilation. 

Moses would have established permanently the Israelites as different but 
very closely related tribes wrought into a national sacerdotal government; 
but the inaptitude for political development and organic congregation which 
seems to be common to the whole Semitic family, led the Israelites to disrup¬ 
tion and secession long before their national government had fully developed 
itself. The history of the Hebrews is a sickening account of national suicide 
and humiliation. 

The prescribed destiny of the Hebrews was to guard, in spite of their pagan 
pruriency, the idea of one God, Creator and Sustainerof all things and beings, 
through centuries of alluring, sensuous and, often aesthetic poly theism aiound 
them. Political nationality was subordinate with them ; yet the fact ought 
to arrest our grave attention that the only monotheistic people, and the peo¬ 
ple for whom Moses legislated, formed a nation, in the modern sense, in the 
earliest times. 



5 


Political Characteristics of our Age. 

The three main characteristics of the political development which mark 
the modern epoch are : 

The national polity; 

The general endeavour to define more clearly, and to extend more widely, 
human rights and civil liberty; (not unconnected as this movement is with 
the pervading critical spirit of the age, and the wedlock of Knowledge and 
Labour, which marks the nineteenth century ;) 

And the decree which has gone forth that many leading nations shall flourish 
at one and the same time, plainly distinguished from one another, yet striving 
together, with one public opinion, under the protection of one law of nations, 
and in the bonds of one common moving civilization. 

The universal monarchy, whether purely political, as that of the Romans 
was, or that attempted again by Napoleon I. ; or whether coupled with the 
papacy, as cruelly attempted by Charles V.,and especially by Philip II., under 
■whom the war cry w r as: “One Pope and One King;” a single leading 
nation; confederacies of petty sovereigns; a civilization confined to one spot 
or portion of the globe—all these are obsolete ideas, wholly insufficient for 
the demands of advanced civilization, and attempts at their renewal have led 
and must lead to ruinous results, the end of all anachronisms recklessly 
pursued. 

Even the course which civilization has steadily taken for thousands of 
years, from the southeast to the northwest, has ceased in our times It now 
spreads for the first time in all directions, and bends its way back to the 
Orient. The old historic belt between 30° and 50° northern latitude, within 
which the great current of events has flown, shall confine history no more. 


Inter-Dependence of Individuals and Nations. The Commonwealth 

of Nations. 

The multiplicity of civilized nations, their distinct independence (without 
which there would be enslaving Universal Monarchy), and their increasing 
resemblance and agreement, are some of the great safeguards of our civiliza¬ 
tion. Modern nations of our family have come 'to agree in much, and the 
agreement is growing. We have one alphabet, one system of numeration, 
one mathematical language, one music and the same fine arts, one system of 
education, high and low, one science, one division of government, one domes¬ 
tic economy, one dress and fashion and the same manners ; we have an ex¬ 
tending agreement in measures, weights, coinage, and signals at sea, and one 
financial conception, so that all merchants’ exchanges have become meetings 
of international import, at least of equal effect with that of international 
diplomacy. 

Formerly the process of nationalization was appearing as one of the novel 
things ; now the process of inter-nationalization is going on; and yet there 
will be no obliteration of nationalities. If such were the case, civilization 
would be seriously injured. Civilization always dwelled preeminently in 


G 


k- 'V 



ancient times with one people, and one government always swayed and led. 
Hence the simplicity of chronologic tables presenting the events of that time ; 
and all ancient states were short-lived. Once declining, they never recovered. 
Tlieir course was that of the projectile : ascending, a maximum, a precipitate 
descent, and no more rising. Modern nations are long-lived, and possess 
recuperative energy wholly unknown to antiquity. They could neither be 
the one nor possess the other without national existence and comprehensive 
polities, and without, the law of nations, in its modern and elevated sense, in 
which it is at once the manly idea of self-government applied to a number of 
independent nations in close relation with one another, and the application 
of the fundamental law of Good Neighbourhood, and the comprehensive law 
of Nuisance, flowing from it, to vast national societies, wholly independent, 
sovereign, yet bound together by a thousand ties. 

The all-pervading law of inter-dependence, without which men would 
never have felt compelled to form society, beyond the narrowest family ties— 
and it is even one of the elementary principles of the family—inter-depen¬ 
dence which like all original principles or characteristics of humanity, 
increases in intensity and spreads in action as men advance,—this divine 
law of inter-dependence applies to nations quite as much as to individuals. 

The individual division of labour is no more impelled by it, than the pro¬ 
duction by territorial and climatic division of labour is quickened by the mu¬ 
tual dependence of the dwellers on the earth. This propitious and civilizing 
inter-dependence among nations is becoming daily more freely and willingly 
acknowledged, and the wise saying, Ubi Societas ibi Jus, finds constantly in¬ 
creasing application to entire nations. The civilized nations have come to 
constitute a community, and are daily forming more and more a com¬ 
monwealth of nations, under the restraint and protection of the law of 
nations, which has be^pfn to make its way even to countries not belonging to 
the Christian community, to which the Law of Nations had been confined. 
Our Wheaton’s Law of Nations has been translated into Chinese, and is distri¬ 
buted by the government of that empire among its high officials. Soon it 
will form a subject of the Chinese higher state examination. The leading 
nations—the French, the English, the Germans, the Americans,—they draw 
the chariot of civilization abreast, as the ancient steeds drew the car of victory, 
and these pages are writing at the time when the imperial chancellor of the v 
German Union has been directed by the Union’-s parliament to propose to all 
nations the perfect security of private property on the high seas during war, 
even though belonging to an enemy; and when a citizen of the American. 
Republic has entered our city, at the head of a high Chinese embassy, sent 
to the great Western Powers in America and Europe, for the avowed purpose 
of attaching China to that Union of Nations among whom the Law of Na¬ 
tions has its sway in peace and in war. 


Press of Fisher & Field, 19 Chatham St., New York. 


